The New Stuff

Over the last few weeks there has been a lot of movement on the live video front. The selling point of all of them, is the ease to broadcast by pushing one button. They also, all involve Twitter in some aspect. Since the launch of Meerkat, in February, many have been chomping at the bit on its uses.
We want to look more at what blew it up and why it may now be dying a slow death.
On the plus side, it was first to the playground. Anyone else would be playing catchup. Secondly, tech journalist loved the little scrappy company, and they were all in.
But wait! Twitter bought a untested competitor, Periscope.
After all the media had planted their flags in Meerkat being the future, they were blown away by the launch of Periscope. The people decided it was their new go to app for live events and fridge views (inside joke).
Over the course of four days, Meerkat moved from 140 to 523 in the App Store, while Periscope jumped to number 30.
But, wait, another player entered the field at SXSW, called Stre.am. They launched on both Android and iOS, unlike Periscope and Meerkat. The only problem is they received zero traction. ZERO.
I, being an android user, did a couple of streams on Stre.am, and only received 25 viewers at most.
The other downside to the service was the video never saved to your phone, as it said it could. Finally, there was no way to title videos, so people could at least have an idea of what they would be viewing.
So, the question is, which reflects your marketing? Are you the media darling going down in flames? The one, with the giant behind you, so you don't really need to market, or the one no one is paying any attention to because you failed to do any relevant marketing.

Over the last few weeks there has been a lot of movement on the live video front. The selling point of all of them, is the ease to broadcast by pushing one button. They also, all involve Twitter in some aspect. Since the launch of Meerkat, in February, many have been chomping at the bit on its uses.
We want to look more at what blew it up and why it may now be dying a slow death.
On the plus side, it was first to the playground. Anyone else would be playing catchup. Secondly, tech journalist loved the little scrappy company, and they were all in.
But wait! Twitter bought a untested competitor, Periscope.
After all the media had planted their flags in Meerkat being the future, they were blown away by the launch of Periscope. The people decided it was their new go to app for live events and fridge views (inside joke).
Over the course of four days, Meerkat moved from 140 to 523 in the App Store, while Periscope jumped to number 30.
But, wait, another player entered the field at SXSW, called Stre.am. They launched on both Android and iOS, unlike Periscope and Meerkat. The only problem is they received zero traction. ZERO.
I, being an android user, did a couple of streams on Stre.am, and only received 25 viewers at most.
The other downside to the service was the video never saved to your phone, as it said it could. Finally, there was no way to title videos, so people could at least have an idea of what they would be viewing.
So, the question is, which reflects your marketing? Are you the media darling going down in flames? The one, with the giant behind you, so you don't really need to market, or the one no one is paying any attention to because you failed to do any relevant marketing.

There are tons of blog posts and articles about influencers today. Most are in regard to those on social media who have large audiences. I want to divide this group into two categories. There are those who have a large following, but do little to monetize that audience. Then, there are the other half who do monetize their audience. They may make their money via brand promotions or sales.
An example of this type would be a person who posts on Snapchat and is paid by a major brand to incorporate their brand into their story. The former, does not have brand deals, and are generally not receiving any payment or making money with their own products, people like Gary Vaynerchuk fall in this category.
What both groups have in common is the ability to move the needle. An influencer, by definition, "the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others."
There are many who argue that the number of followers doesn't matter. To a point they are correct. If you have a million followers and no one cares what you say, there is a problem.
The thing is that real influencers have influence. You may not like that, like the anti-vaxxer doctor that thousands believe is a god, though he is responsible for bringing back diseases which had been eradicated in the United States. On the flip side, people like Taylor Swift influences people to be kind and to buy music instead of stealing it.
Influencers get people to take an action, whether it is to watch a snapchat, read and comment on social media content, and for many that can mean influencing people to buy brand X instead of brand Y.
We have been used to celebrities and politicians have this type of "power," but with the rise of Internet "fame," the playing field has been leveled, so that any average Joe with a good idea can produce content which people want to see or read.

There are many claiming to have influence, but the ROI tells the truth. If people don't act on their suggestions, then odds are they are just noise makers.

The question you have to ask yourself is do you move the needle or just yap into the air?

There are tons of blog posts and articles about influencers today. Most are in regard to those on social media who have large audiences. I want to divide this group into two categories. There are those who have a large following, but do little to monetize that audience. Then, there are the other half who do monetize their audience. They may make their money via brand promotions or sales.
An example of this type would be a person who posts on Snapchat and is paid by a major brand to incorporate their brand into their story. The former, does not have brand deals, and are generally not receiving any payment or making money with their own products, people like Gary Vaynerchuk fall in this category.
What both groups have in common is the ability to move the needle. An influencer, by definition, "the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others."
There are many who argue that the number of followers doesn't matter. To a point they are correct. If you have a million followers and no one cares what you say, there is a problem.
The thing is that real influencers have influence. You may not like that, like the anti-vaxxer doctor that thousands believe is a god, though he is responsible for bringing back diseases which had been eradicated in the United States. On the flip side, people like Taylor Swift influences people to be kind and to buy music instead of stealing it.
Influencers get people to take an action, whether it is to watch a snapchat, read and comment on social media content, and for many that can mean influencing people to buy brand X instead of brand Y.
We have been used to celebrities and politicians have this type of "power," but with the rise of Internet "fame," the playing field has been leveled, so that any average Joe with a good idea can produce content which people want to see or read.

There are many claiming to have influence, but the ROI tells the truth. If people don't act on their suggestions, then odds are they are just noise makers.

The question you have to ask yourself is do you move the needle or just yap into the air?

Person: “You know how she/he is. You know what will happen
if you do/don’t do this.”

It took me hearing this conversation a few times to get that
people were being trained to fear the person in authority. I couldn’t help but
think, “Why does that person need to be feared instead of respected?”

We have all had our share of bosses, co-workers, and maybe
even family members, who everyone jumped at just the mention of their name.
People adjusted their behavior and even speaking level based on the mood of
this person. People would scatter as they came into the room just to be out of
the path of their anger.

It reminds me of the 1988 movie, ‘Big Business,’ where the
boss, Sadie Shelton, has people so afraid of her that the people in the office
call each other when she arrives at the building. As she makes her way through
the office people dive into closets as she unleashes her venom on those in her
view.

Bruno Bettelheim says, “Punishment may make us obey the orders we are given, but at best it will
only teach an obedience to authority, not a self-control which enhances our
self-respect.” It seems that some people do not understand that respect
and obedience through fear are not the same thing.

Steve Jobs, by his own
admission, was not the nicest guy in Silicon Valley to work for before he was
fired by the company he founded. When he went back some 14 years later, there
was a different man at the helm. He was still ambitious and driven, but the
angry boss was gone.

We have to make sure as
leaders that we are respecting people and treating them properly. When people
are treated right, they will give back the respect they have been given.

The other way to put it
is, if you think that employee is going to keep all that anger and resentment
they receive to themselves, you are in for a rude awakening. Most likely, it is
being pushed onto your customers.

Person: “You know how she/he is. You know what will happen
if you do/don’t do this.”

It took me hearing this conversation a few times to get that
people were being trained to fear the person in authority. I couldn’t help but
think, “Why does that person need to be feared instead of respected?”

We have all had our share of bosses, co-workers, and maybe
even family members, who everyone jumped at just the mention of their name.
People adjusted their behavior and even speaking level based on the mood of
this person. People would scatter as they came into the room just to be out of
the path of their anger.

It reminds me of the 1988 movie, ‘Big Business,’ where the
boss, Sadie Shelton, has people so afraid of her that the people in the office
call each other when she arrives at the building. As she makes her way through
the office people dive into closets as she unleashes her venom on those in her
view.

Bruno Bettelheim says, “Punishment may make us obey the orders we are given, but at best it will
only teach an obedience to authority, not a self-control which enhances our
self-respect.” It seems that some people do not understand that respect
and obedience through fear are not the same thing.

Steve Jobs, by his own
admission, was not the nicest guy in Silicon Valley to work for before he was
fired by the company he founded. When he went back some 14 years later, there
was a different man at the helm. He was still ambitious and driven, but the
angry boss was gone.

We have to make sure as
leaders that we are respecting people and treating them properly. When people
are treated right, they will give back the respect they have been given.

The other way to put it
is, if you think that employee is going to keep all that anger and resentment
they receive to themselves, you are in for a rude awakening. Most likely, it is
being pushed onto your customers.

PR has a bad rep for the most part, and sadly most of it is justified. In my experience with the Adobe PR team, I waited an hour for them to send an email declining my press pass. If I had not been onsite at the time, and already been to the keynote, I would say no harm, no foul, but that is not the case.

In this case, the woman took my papers and told me it would take five minutes. She then worked with at least 40 other people as she waited for this magical answer to appear from on high.
Well, it turns out her only way to communicate with the PR person, Alex Moriconi was via text. She literally had to take a photo of my assignment letter to send it him or her. My thought was WTF???

So it ticks me off that after an hour, he or she finally sent a denial. I find that rather inefficient and unjustifiable on any level. Empower the people at the desk or have people attempt to register at the press room.

I don't mind they did it by text. I mind that they wasted an hour of my time when it could have been done in less than 10 minutes. I mind that there is no reason given for it, and I really mind that they then have the nerve to insult you and say you can pay $595 to see some displays and go to some parties. REALLY?

The job of the public relations department is to make the company they represent look good in the public eye. Fortunately, I like Adobe, so I will overlook this blot on their image. You don't make people wait an hour to tell them "no, but if you pay us, yes."

Be mindful of the people you want to write good things about your product or service. Don't be like the Adobe PR team.

PR has a bad rep for the most part, and sadly most of it is justified. In my experience with the Adobe PR team, I waited an hour for them to send an email declining my press pass. If I had not been onsite at the time, and already been to the keynote, I would say no harm, no foul, but that is not the case.

In this case, the woman took my papers and told me it would take five minutes. She then worked with at least 40 other people as she waited for this magical answer to appear from on high.
Well, it turns out her only way to communicate with the PR person, Alex Moriconi was via text. She literally had to take a photo of my assignment letter to send it him or her. My thought was WTF???

So it ticks me off that after an hour, he or she finally sent a denial. I find that rather inefficient and unjustifiable on any level. Empower the people at the desk or have people attempt to register at the press room.

I don't mind they did it by text. I mind that they wasted an hour of my time when it could have been done in less than 10 minutes. I mind that there is no reason given for it, and I really mind that they then have the nerve to insult you and say you can pay $595 to see some displays and go to some parties. REALLY?

The job of the public relations department is to make the company they represent look good in the public eye. Fortunately, I like Adobe, so I will overlook this blot on their image. You don't make people wait an hour to tell them "no, but if you pay us, yes."

Be mindful of the people you want to write good things about your product or service. Don't be like the Adobe PR team.

Everyday someone hangs out their shingle declaring they are in business. It is a noble idea, a little exciting, and some admit they enter with a little too much optimism and not enough planning. Many have been sold on the idea that if they want to be wealthy they have to start their own business or invest in real estate. But, do some enter business without really thinking and planning it out? Yes.
Businesses require planning or a person will jump from idea or strategy to another with little results to show for it in the end. It is one thing to sell stuff on the side on eBay, but the real money makers have a plan to carry out their eBay business.
What are some things that a person starting a business needs to plan?
1. What is the item for sale? Is it a service or product?
2. Who wants that item? Is it for businesses or consumers? In other words, who is the target audience?
3. What is the price point? How much does it cost to buy?
4. How will it get to the buyer? Is it digital, a hard item, or in-person product?
5. How will buyers know the item exists? What kind of marketing and promotion will be done, or is it all word of mouth or referrals?
6. Is the business legal with all proper licensing, taxes, etc., done?
Why are people so confused or turned around when starting a business? One of the problems some businesses owners encounter on social media sites is the temptation to drop their strategies for those of self-appointed gurus; although some admit to feeling overwhelmed with all "choices" they seem to have.
This group tends to ditch easy small ticket items to become "coaches," or run high ticket programs, but have no real plan in place to deal with slow times or growth. Others fall for the trap of the 4 hour work week illusion. This is the idea that someone can become independently wealthy just working 4 hours per week on their business. The problem is this is pretty much a myth.
Finally, some new business owners listen to people who are wannabes instead of listening to the successful. It stands to reason that if a person wants to know what it is like in Hawaii, they should ask someone who has been there, not the person who just looked at a picture, yet many solo business owners fall for the big talkers instead of the people with proven results.
It may also be an ego thing at work in not listening to those who have done it, but it is at the costs of some solo business owners spending a lot of time chasing rabbits instead of collecting money from paying customers.

Everyday someone hangs out their shingle declaring they are in business. It is a noble idea, a little exciting, and some admit they enter with a little too much optimism and not enough planning. Many have been sold on the idea that if they want to be wealthy they have to start their own business or invest in real estate. But, do some enter business without really thinking and planning it out? Yes.
Businesses require planning or a person will jump from idea or strategy to another with little results to show for it in the end. It is one thing to sell stuff on the side on eBay, but the real money makers have a plan to carry out their eBay business.
What are some things that a person starting a business needs to plan?
1. What is the item for sale? Is it a service or product?
2. Who wants that item? Is it for businesses or consumers? In other words, who is the target audience?
3. What is the price point? How much does it cost to buy?
4. How will it get to the buyer? Is it digital, a hard item, or in-person product?
5. How will buyers know the item exists? What kind of marketing and promotion will be done, or is it all word of mouth or referrals?
6. Is the business legal with all proper licensing, taxes, etc., done?
Why are people so confused or turned around when starting a business? One of the problems some businesses owners encounter on social media sites is the temptation to drop their strategies for those of self-appointed gurus; although some admit to feeling overwhelmed with all "choices" they seem to have.
This group tends to ditch easy small ticket items to become "coaches," or run high ticket programs, but have no real plan in place to deal with slow times or growth. Others fall for the trap of the 4 hour work week illusion. This is the idea that someone can become independently wealthy just working 4 hours per week on their business. The problem is this is pretty much a myth.
Finally, some new business owners listen to people who are wannabes instead of listening to the successful. It stands to reason that if a person wants to know what it is like in Hawaii, they should ask someone who has been there, not the person who just looked at a picture, yet many solo business owners fall for the big talkers instead of the people with proven results.
It may also be an ego thing at work in not listening to those who have done it, but it is at the costs of some solo business owners spending a lot of time chasing rabbits instead of collecting money from paying customers.

I am sort of aficionado when it comes to the show The
Apprentice. I have watched the show from every English speaking Country, and
have learned quite a bit from the show. Some of the errors of candidates,
regardless of the Country, seem to be universal. Could it be that those same
mistakes make it into real business, which is why so many fail? The mistakes
are:

Ignoring Market Research: Without a doubt this
is the one that seems to be more about ego than the idea that the market is
wrong. Let me give you two examples. One, there was a task to make a home
exercise piece of equipment. The market research told the losing team that it
had to be simple and easy to use. What did they make? A black box with exercise
hands. It was ugly and complicated. One of the places they pitched said the
best thing about the team’s pitch was that they took the box with them when
they left. Ouch. The second was to build an item for the home. The losing team
went against the research and built what they referred to as a splash wall to
keep water from getting out of the tub when the child played. The better idea
they had was for a pillow in the bathtub.

Not controlling the budget: Just because you
have money does not mean you have to spend it all in one place. You have to
know and justify what you are spending money on.In the task the candidates were required to
set up a cleaning service for the day. The caveat was that all the equipment
they put in their van came out of their $300 budget. The losing team spent
almost all of their money, and seemed to be happy by their decision. The other
team spent only half, and actually undersold the losing the losing team, but
because the losing team let their budget get away from them, they ended up in
the boardroom for one of them to be fired.

Being nasty is not a skill: Several candidates
on season five of The Apprentice UK were nasty, mean spirited, and way too
arrogant. They were nasty to each other, customers, places they were pitching,
and one was even nasty to one of the people who follows the team. Let me tell
you this was not the thing to be, they received a dressing down from Lord Sugar
they won’t soon forget. The nastiness even caused some of them to purposely
sabotage their team’s chances of winning just to try to get someone they didn’t
like out of the competition. It didn’t work.

Know your products: There are two tasks with two
different skills needed. One, they send the candidates to buy products from a
list at the cheapest price. The other was selling products they had for their
proper value. In the first one, there are always items they have zero clue what
they are, so they waste lots of time trying to find them, and tend to
overspend. In the other task, they are supposed to find the value of the
product and then sell it for that price or more. In both cases, teams waste
lots of time on the things which don’t matter, ignore sound advice, and forget
what they were told to do in the briefing. In the valuation tasks, both teams
lost money just by not doing research.

Practice your pitch: This show has lots of
people with egos and they like to show off, so they will put the wrong person
in to pitch. The main example I can think of involved a mobile app. The person
who should have done the speech, does speeches to youth as her job. The one who
did the pitch was a project manager who had zero clue of this market, and
sounded like she was pitching to a corporate board. She even failed to tell
them how to download the product.

Although these candidates just
suffered being fired by one of The Apprentice hosts, business owners could
suffer consequences which could lead to their business being unprofitable or
closed, so take heed.

I am sort of aficionado when it comes to the show The
Apprentice. I have watched the show from every English speaking Country, and
have learned quite a bit from the show. Some of the errors of candidates,
regardless of the Country, seem to be universal. Could it be that those same
mistakes make it into real business, which is why so many fail? The mistakes
are:

Ignoring Market Research: Without a doubt this
is the one that seems to be more about ego than the idea that the market is
wrong. Let me give you two examples. One, there was a task to make a home
exercise piece of equipment. The market research told the losing team that it
had to be simple and easy to use. What did they make? A black box with exercise
hands. It was ugly and complicated. One of the places they pitched said the
best thing about the team’s pitch was that they took the box with them when
they left. Ouch. The second was to build an item for the home. The losing team
went against the research and built what they referred to as a splash wall to
keep water from getting out of the tub when the child played. The better idea
they had was for a pillow in the bathtub.

Not controlling the budget: Just because you
have money does not mean you have to spend it all in one place. You have to
know and justify what you are spending money on.In the task the candidates were required to
set up a cleaning service for the day. The caveat was that all the equipment
they put in their van came out of their $300 budget. The losing team spent
almost all of their money, and seemed to be happy by their decision. The other
team spent only half, and actually undersold the losing the losing team, but
because the losing team let their budget get away from them, they ended up in
the boardroom for one of them to be fired.

Being nasty is not a skill: Several candidates
on season five of The Apprentice UK were nasty, mean spirited, and way too
arrogant. They were nasty to each other, customers, places they were pitching,
and one was even nasty to one of the people who follows the team. Let me tell
you this was not the thing to be, they received a dressing down from Lord Sugar
they won’t soon forget. The nastiness even caused some of them to purposely
sabotage their team’s chances of winning just to try to get someone they didn’t
like out of the competition. It didn’t work.

Know your products: There are two tasks with two
different skills needed. One, they send the candidates to buy products from a
list at the cheapest price. The other was selling products they had for their
proper value. In the first one, there are always items they have zero clue what
they are, so they waste lots of time trying to find them, and tend to
overspend. In the other task, they are supposed to find the value of the
product and then sell it for that price or more. In both cases, teams waste
lots of time on the things which don’t matter, ignore sound advice, and forget
what they were told to do in the briefing. In the valuation tasks, both teams
lost money just by not doing research.

Practice your pitch: This show has lots of
people with egos and they like to show off, so they will put the wrong person
in to pitch. The main example I can think of involved a mobile app. The person
who should have done the speech, does speeches to youth as her job. The one who
did the pitch was a project manager who had zero clue of this market, and
sounded like she was pitching to a corporate board. She even failed to tell
them how to download the product.

Although these candidates just
suffered being fired by one of The Apprentice hosts, business owners could
suffer consequences which could lead to their business being unprofitable or
closed, so take heed.

I have a friend who hates Google+. There's no real reason for this animosity, but she just hates it. My guess is because it takes time to develop relationships on it. It's not like Twitter where you can throw out some tweets on a popular Tweet and someone will possibly start a chat with you. Nope, Google+ takes work, but the spoils go to those who are willing to do the work.
As you know, every platform has an audience and serves a particular purpose. Twitter used to be if you wanted to meet people, then you could send them a tweet, but with the rise of so called social media experts, the platform has changed to a one sided broadcast. The only way to have a conversation is to be on a hashtag chat or talk about a trending topic. Sorry, but that is the reality.
Facebook is really for people you know, and it is moving towards a pay to have your post seen platform due to all the brands, marketers and moms. Again, just another reality.
Google plus is sort of what you want it to be. If you want success, you will have to:
*Have people in your circles that are active on the platform, and not just a bunch of people autoposting.
*Find people around a hobby/idea (example, photography is a HUGE group)
*Participate in some Hangouts
*Comment on stuff that interest you. The comment system is sort of a chat the way many use it.
*Jump In
Using it for your business is a no brainer. You can use the Hangouts (video conference with up to 9 people) to share your expertise, interview people, cook, sing, whatever.
If you want to have some ROI for your time on Google+ then consider becoming an instructor in the Helpout section. You set the price, the time limit, and the topic. Google gets 20 percent, but small price to pay since it is their audience that is coming to you.
Get in there and really get involved. Don't listen to people (journalist) who don't even use the platform. That's like asking a life long vegan how a steak tastes. They have no idea.

I have a friend who hates Google+. There's no real reason for this animosity, but she just hates it. My guess is because it takes time to develop relationships on it. It's not like Twitter where you can throw out some tweets on a popular Tweet and someone will possibly start a chat with you. Nope, Google+ takes work, but the spoils go to those who are willing to do the work.
As you know, every platform has an audience and serves a particular purpose. Twitter used to be if you wanted to meet people, then you could send them a tweet, but with the rise of so called social media experts, the platform has changed to a one sided broadcast. The only way to have a conversation is to be on a hashtag chat or talk about a trending topic. Sorry, but that is the reality.
Facebook is really for people you know, and it is moving towards a pay to have your post seen platform due to all the brands, marketers and moms. Again, just another reality.
Google plus is sort of what you want it to be. If you want success, you will have to:
*Have people in your circles that are active on the platform, and not just a bunch of people autoposting.
*Find people around a hobby/idea (example, photography is a HUGE group)
*Participate in some Hangouts
*Comment on stuff that interest you. The comment system is sort of a chat the way many use it.
*Jump In
Using it for your business is a no brainer. You can use the Hangouts (video conference with up to 9 people) to share your expertise, interview people, cook, sing, whatever.
If you want to have some ROI for your time on Google+ then consider becoming an instructor in the Helpout section. You set the price, the time limit, and the topic. Google gets 20 percent, but small price to pay since it is their audience that is coming to you.
Get in there and really get involved. Don't listen to people (journalist) who don't even use the platform. That's like asking a life long vegan how a steak tastes. They have no idea.